Science academies hand climate change body a recipe for reform

In the wake of a couple of highly publicized errors in the last climate …

In the wake of a few high-profile errors found in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report, the organization asked the InterAcademy Council, a coalition of national science organizations, to examine its structure and procedures in order to identify potential weaknesses. The IAC's report came in today, and it more or less indicates that the IPCC has been a victim of its own success. Because so many people, from policy makers to critics, pay attention to the IPCC's reports, the IAC suggests that fundamental reforms are needed to improve the transparency and rigor of the organization.

The IPCC's troubles began with a disclosure that one of the sections in its massive Fourth Assessment Report, the Summary for Policymakers, contained some inaccurate information regarding the likely fate of Himalayan glaciers, suggesting they were melting at an unrealistic rate. That seems to have opened the floodgates, and a variety of claimed inaccuracies (some spurious) were published, as was an attack on the group's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. These issues helped prompt the IPCC to request an evaluation of its organization and process. For that, it turned to the IAC, which has a membership that includes the national science academies of many nations, including the US' National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society.

Princeton's Hal Shapiro, who chaired the IAC's review committee, introduced the report at a press conference in New York earlier today. He repeatedly made it clear (often to the disappointment of some reporters present) that the committee's task wasn't to re-review the science present in the IPCC report; instead, the focus was on understanding how the IPCC's own review process could be improved, and how the organization could maintain its credibility in the face of both justifiable scrutiny and spurious accusations.

Shapiro praised the organization, saying, "overall, it has served the world well." But its success has resulted in public scrutiny that the IPCC's original structure, which has remained intact through four major reports, simply isn't capable of handling. To provide fast, year-round responses to potential errors, the report calls for the IPCC to put an executive committee in place, headed by an executive director chosen from among the group's senior scientists. To prevent any of the executive committee members from being seen as the face of the IPCC (much as Pachauri is now), the IAC recommends that all of its senior staff serve in those positions for a single assessment.

That sort of approach should extend throughout the organization. The IPCC currently has no rules for handling conflicts of interest or guidelines for determining who within the organization can claim to speak on its behalf. The committee urges that policies for both of these issues be put in place in time for the next IPCC assessment report.

The same goes for the group's review process. The most recent report, AR4, drew roughly 90,000 comments, and Shapiro said that many of these were more editorial than critiques of the science. To manage this flood of critiques, the report recommends that the IPCC "adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments." This would involve having the Review Editors sift through the flood of input for the valid and significant points. This would do away with the current policy, which requires the authors of a given section to respond to all comments that are submitted.

The final area that could use reform is how uncertainty used in the report is handled. Shapiro highlighted how, in the summary for policymakers, the authors expressed high confidence in predictions that were later found to be erroneous, and in a few cases confidence levels were assigned to statements that he termed "unfalsifiable." The report calls for the use of quantitative probabilities only when the evidence is very well understood, and for a consistent use of a qualitative scale for documents intended for policymakers.

Overall, it's difficult to find fault with any of these recommendations, or the general justification for their adoption—the IPCC has clearly outgrown the process and structure that got it through the first few assessment reports. Will the changes be put in place in time for the next report, AR5?

The IPCC's Pachauri held a press conference to discuss just that question, but failed to address some key points. Since he and many other senior IPCC staff members shepherded AR4 to completion, the IAC's report would seem to call for him to step down. Instead, Pachauri indicated he'd push for the adoption of the IAC's recommendations, but wouldn't say whether he'd step down even if they weren't taken up wholesale. The questions from the media present quickly bogged down that press conference into a discussion of the IPCC's science (in contrast to the first, where Hal Shapiro kept matters on topic).

The end result is that the IPCC appears to now have an excellent roadmap for reforming its governance and process, and its leadership appears to be interested in implementing them. Unfortunately, as the press conference demonstrated, any implementation will take place against a backdrop of criticism, some of it spurious, as well as copious amounts of mistrust.

Ars Science Video >

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

Nearly 20 years ago, the Cassini-Huygens mission was launched and the spacecraft has spent the last 13 years orbiting Saturn. Cassini burned up in Saturn's atmosphere, and left an amazing legacy.

My 2 cents: They might want to consider starting a crowdsourcing type web application to sort and manage the comments. Volunteers to flag them as being just editorial comments or ones pointing out errors in the data. I'm sure they'd want to enact some controls kind of how Yahoo! Answers does and maybe restrict to those in academia even. But certainly a lot of concerned scientists and citizens would find value in being able to contribute even just a little in the effort.

Just for contrast in tone, here's the headline and first four paragraphs of the New York Times' coverage:

Flaws Found in U.N. Climate Structure

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations needs to revise the way it manages its assessments of climate change, with the scientists involved more open to alternative views, more transparent about possible conflicts of interest and more careful to avoid making policy prescriptions, an independent review panel said Monday.

[picture, with caption: "A review has been interpreted as hinting that Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of a climate change panel, step down."]

The review panel also recommended that the senior officials involved in producing the periodic assessments serve in their voluntary positions for only one report — a statement interpreted to suggest that the current chairman of the climate panel, Rajendra K. Pachauri, step down.

Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, has been struggling to make the United Nations the main stage for addressing climate change. Errors in the 2007 assessment report, including a prediction that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, have threatened to overshadow the United Nations’ message that climate change is a significant threat requiring urgent collective action.

“I think the errors made did dent the credibility of the process,” said Harold T. Shapiro, a former president of Princeton University and professor of economic and public affairs there. Being more open about the process will help the report withstand the public scrutiny it now endures, Mr. Shapiro, the chairman of the review committee, told a news conference.

I agree with Bryan886 but I would extend that a little. Right now they are asking scientists (I say this as a scientist) to do things we are not trained to do, like manage a press conference. Some of us are naturals at it, but most of us aren't- people who are good at that sort of thing don't tend to flock to science. The scientists could do with some expert help. The dichotomy between the kind of results that scientific inquiry generates, and the kind of information that the media distribute would probably be best managed by intermediaries expert at getting the information into short, accurate packets.

also, along with UltimateLemon, what IS up with the shark? boiled alive by superheated oceans, or thrilled with expanding territory?

The end result is that BP appears to now have an excellent roadmap for reforming its deep sea drilling and process, and its leadership appears to be interested in implementing them. Unfortunately, as the press conference demonstrated, any progress in securing U.S. energy independence and U.S. jobs will take place against a backdrop of criticism, some of it spurious, as well as copious amounts of mistrust.

Funny, I do not see Nobel Intent writing such lenient articles about U.S. industry and jobs as I see Nobel Intent writing them about an institution that has published such laughable predictions as "Himalayas melted by 2035".

Well, on the bright side, there has to be some sort of gain to being held to the highest standards in the scientific world with zero tolerance for errors.

It's not just these "errors" that concern people, but in example, if you are trying [the impossible] of reading the future of the planet's climate one hundred to two hundred years in advance, then any error you make, regardless of how microscopic it might seem today, has the real potential of skewing the climate-prediction picture so radically that it very well could be that the climate 100 years from now won't resemble the climate as predicted in these "reports" at all. And at that point the question of how important these reports are is one that needs asking--a lot.

Peripherally, also, we've got this whole movement going on in the UN and other frightening political bodies (frightening because they somehow manage to do so little with so much) to completely usurp this whole business as a "science" and turn it into politics as usual. A political spear to be thrown about during various UN sessions--that is, at the times when everyone there isn't asleep. This also does nothing to strengthen the credibility of these reports.

In a way, though, I suppose this art of reading the climate's tea leaves (would "reading the tree rings" be a better metaphor?) to reveal what will happen in a century or two, is really more akin to politics and soothsayers than it is to what we like to call "science" these days. So perhaps winding up at the UN is precisely the right place for climate prediction to settle in at last. There in the cozy confines of the UN, where corruption is King, hysteria is Queen, it may well be that climate prediction will finally get its just desserts...

The end result is that BP appears to now have an excellent roadmap for reforming its deep sea drilling and process, and its leadership appears to be interested in implementing them. Unfortunately, as the press conference demonstrated, any progress in securing U.S. energy independence and U.S. jobs will take place against a backdrop of criticism, some of it spurious, as well as copious amounts of mistrust.

Are you assuming that a non-profit organization whose primary job is to summarize peer-reviewed, published research and whose primary product is a document free for the world to scrutinize, is driven by the same motives and is subject to the same pressures as a for-profit corporation whose primary product is a material good?

If so, I would like to point out the difference between public and private goods.

***

WaltC,

The same scientific knowledge that permits us to understand climate in the past predicts that the Earth will warm with the inputs we measure today, most notably the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. (If you read the IPCC report, the predictions have an error band, the most conservative of which still predicts warming.)

Do you the scientific consensus about how climate works is wrong? If so, how so?

Funny, I do not see Nobel Intent writing such lenient articles about U.S. industry and jobs as I see Nobel Intent writing them about an institution that has published such laughable predictions as "Himalayas melted by 2035".

With respect to the excellent IPCC reviewers and scientists, I really think it's disappointing that an error made it into one of the 2007 IPCC reports. It's not like the authors are economists, journalists or policy makers - who subscribe to diciplines with lower standards. In the 21st century, I don't think it's beyond the world's best scientists to produce flawless, unassailable reports.

Conversely, the public and politicians need to realise that scientific views should be treated differently to all over views in society.

The end result is that BP appears to now have an excellent roadmap for reforming its deep sea drilling and process, and its leadership appears to be interested in implementing them. Unfortunately, as the press conference demonstrated, any progress in securing U.S. energy independence and U.S. jobs will take place against a backdrop of criticism, some of it spurious, as well as copious amounts of mistrust.

BP is an english company (well multinational but meh) not U.S.

BP may be incorporated in London, but the jobs it provides in oil rigs in the Gulf go to U.S. persons, the extraction taxes it pays go to the U.S. treasury, and if you believe the oil they produce gets shipped to England, well, can I interest you in an nice big bridge over the river Thames?

I am not really anti-Global Warming science, but I do think the science is not as secure in its predictions as some of its cheerleaders would like to think it is. This ars page in fact shows indication of such, and the theatrics of hippies like Al Gore is not convincing either.

With respect to the excellent IPCC reviewers and scientists, I really think it's disappointing that an error made it into one of the 2007 IPCC reports. It's not like the authors are economists, journalists or policy makers...

Actually for the part about the Himalayas melting... weren't they? This wasn't the WGI, or scientific assessment part of the report, but appeared in the summary for policy makers in a section that drew on non-peer-reviewed "grey literature" from what I understand.

I am not really anti-Global Warming science, but I do think the science is not as secure in its predictions as some of its cheerleaders would like to think it is. This ars page in fact shows indication of such, and the theatrics of hippies like Al Gore is not convincing either.

This article shows nothing of the sort: the IPCC is not strictly a scientific paper because it does no original research and the errors highlighted have not put any legitimate challenge forth on the strength of the climate consensus. In fact, if anything it looks like the IPCC's projections are more conservative than realistic in light of the information science has unearthed since the deadline for inclusion in the last report was reached. Frankly it looks like nothing in this article touches on the actual science but the process of the IPCC governance, and how you draw the conclusion you do is a mystery to me.

The end result is that BP appears to now have an excellent roadmap for reforming its deep sea drilling and process, and its leadership appears to be interested in implementing them. Unfortunately, as the press conference demonstrated, any progress in securing U.S. energy independence and U.S. jobs will take place against a backdrop of criticism, some of it spurious, as well as copious amounts of mistrust.

BP is an english company (well multinational but meh) not U.S.

BP may be incorporated in London, but the jobs it provides in oil rigs in the Gulf go to U.S. persons, the extraction taxes it pays go to the U.S. treasury, and if you believe the oil they produce gets shipped to England, well, can I interest you in an nice big bridge over the river Thames?

So.. in other words your using the standard appeal to emotion logical fallacy by invoking the usual jobs red-herring?As for "securing U.S. energy independence" wouldnt that be better achieved by weaning yourselves OFF oil?

Funny, I do not see Nobel Intent writing such lenient articles about U.S. industry and jobs as I see Nobel Intent writing them about an institution that has published such laughable predictions as "Himalayas melted by 2035".

Ask someone from Pakistan about this and see how you go...

Oh yeah, and west-China

Actually, the flooding in Pakistan is due to massive deforestation (which itelf contributes to the greenhouse effect), but I don't believe anyone's claiming the monsoons were themselves caused by global warming.

Are you assuming that a non-profit organization whose primary job is to summarize peer-reviewed, published research and whose primary product is a document free for the world to scrutinize, is driven by the same motives and is subject to the same pressures as a for-profit corporation whose primary product is a material good?

If so, I would like to point out the difference between public and private goods.

Hypnos,

Am I to understand you are advocating that a non-profit organization deserves to be handled with softer gloves than a for-profit corporation? Are you justifying NI's incredibly biased kid-gloves treatment of the UN in this story?

For-profit entities are naturally reined in by the marketplace and tort law. Great mischief results in them going belly up, shareholders getting wiped out, whole employee careers being set back significantly or ruined. Ask the Enron and Lehman guys. What, exactly, happens to tax-supported United Nations bureaucrats when they screw up?

Ever heard of agency theory? I have news for you. The tax-paid UN bureaucrats out there might be tangentially interested in your best interest, but generally speaking, they are out looking for #1.

I am not really anti-Global Warming science, but I do think the science is not as secure in its predictions as some of its cheerleaders would like to think it is. This ars page in fact shows indication of such, and the theatrics of hippies like Al Gore is not convincing either.

This article shows nothing of the sort: the IPCC is not strictly a scientific paper because it does no original research and the errors highlighted have not put any legitimate challenge forth on the strength of the climate consensus. In fact, if anything it looks like the IPCC's projections are more conservative than realistic in light of the information science has unearthed since the deadline for inclusion in the last report was reached. Frankly it looks like nothing in this article touches on the actual science but the process of the IPCC governance, and how you draw the conclusion you do is a mystery to me.

It's not a scientific paper period, it's just a semi-formal collection of summaries on specific topics related to climate change.

The end result is that BP appears to now have an excellent roadmap for reforming its deep sea drilling and process, and its leadership appears to be interested in implementing them. Unfortunately, as the press conference demonstrated, any progress in securing U.S. energy independence and U.S. jobs will take place against a backdrop of criticism, some of it spurious, as well as copious amounts of mistrust.

BP is an english company (well multinational but meh) not U.S.

BP may be incorporated in London, but the jobs it provides in oil rigs in the Gulf go to U.S. persons, the extraction taxes it pays go to the U.S. treasury, and if you believe the oil they produce gets shipped to England, well, can I interest you in an nice big bridge over the river Thames?

So.. in other words your using the standard appeal to emotion logical fallacy by invoking the usual jobs red-herring?

No. Let me explain the argument to you:

1. In the course of mocking Ars' biased, kids-glove treatment of a UN agency that has put out some granola-crowd loopy "reports," I wrote about how BP helps secure US energy independence and US jobs. I never said BP is a US company, because BP's nationality is irrelevant to BP's contribution to the US strategic energy and employment goals.

2. You asserted that BP is an English company

3. I explained to you that BP's place of incorporation is irrelevant to my point regarding US energy independence and US employment

I agree that corporation is answerable to its shareholders, though given corporate law at this time, representation is disproportionately given to those with preferred shares, such as the board and executives. Nonetheless, in the end, as long a corporation is serving its shareholders, it's job is done; tort law is merely a cost consideration. To the extent that a corporation will get away with creating negative externalities, it will. Moreover, corporations are protected by operational secrecy. The moral hazard in question here is whether BP can be trusted to make profit from oil extraction without creating collateral damage. Since protecting against collateral damage hurts their bottom line, the answer is no, so we need regulatory oversight.

Let's compare that with the IPCC. It's a bunch of scientists whose names are listed on their website, reviewing published research and serving it up in a nice package for the non-expert public and policy makers. If you don't like their work, you can always redo it by reviewing the same literature; if flaws are found, it hurts the scientists' reputations. The moral hazard here is that the scientists will make a living (if not a particularly lucrative one) by blowing up global warming in an effort to get more research dollars. In this case, the corrective mechanism the transparency of the whole process -- the inputs and outputs are all publicly available.

It is the nature of the work that makes the IPCC more trustworthy than BP, not the nature of the people.

As for Nobel Intent's "kid gloves," I am inclined to agree that an organization whose opinions can influence economic policy should mind its p's and q's particularly closely, because real time/money/effort is at stake. While the work is academic in nature, the consequences are not.

Sorry Ars, but your article contains inaccurate information. The unsubstantiated claim in the IPCC report that the Himalayan glaciers are going to be gone in the not too distant future is more that just "inaccurate information". It's a downright lie intended to create unnecessary fear in the general population, because scared people are easily manipulated. Ars has been steadfast is spreading the gospel of the Church of Global Warming. What's next? A bombastic speech declaring that global warming is America's chickens coming home to roost? The notion that the climate shouldn't be changing, or that humans shouldn't have an impact on it is evidence that the Church's scientists suffer from delusions of grandeur.

Why don't you tell me what to think Ars? In the light of "a couple" of "highly publicised" errors, the IPCC is actually doing really well is it? Thanks for that. Since the UN actually recommends that sceptical views are not discouraged, haven't you kind of missed the point? My trust in climatologists is at approximately the same level as my trust for subprime mortgage ratings analysts. By which I don't mean either group are wrong - they just both know what they are going to say before they look at the evidence.

off topic, but why do they call it climate change and not global warming?global warming never implies if it is 100% man made changes or climate, or a combination of both. The world is getting warmer, no doubt about it, hence global warming. climate change however implies that it is 100% climate only and not man made changes

Quote:

The notion that the climate shouldn't be changing, or that humans shouldn't have an impact on it is evidence that the Church's scientists suffer from delusions of grandeur.

When has the church or any of the Abrahamic religions not suffered from ignorance and delusions?

off topic, but why do they call it climate change and not global warming?global warming never implies if it is 100% man made changes or climate, or a combination of both. The world is getting warmer, no doubt about it, hence global warming. climate change however implies that it is 100% climate only and not man made changes

Climate change is the change in climate over time, global warming is the current trend; also people mistakenly think only of the weather meaning of temperature when they hear warming instead of thermodynamics energy point of view

Just for contrast in tone, here's the headline and first four paragraphs of the New York Times' coverage:

Flaws Found in U.N. Climate Structure(snip)

Indeed, the clear Ars bias on this issue is palpable when compared to the Times' relatively unbiased reportage. The New York Times isn't exactly known for its anti-AGW rightwing spin, is it? Ars is however now well known for its pro-AGW leftist spin. Even measured, reasonable criticisms of the IPCC get spun into astroturf here. How long before such bias infects confidence in Ars' other coverage?

As for the picture of the shark that everyone keeps commenting on, I suggest that in keeping with the article's tone it be changed into a drawing of John Timmer making sweet, sweet love to Rajendra Pachauri.

Regarding Pachauri himself, I've pointed out before in the neverending barrage of warmist astroturf threads that he's admitted publicly to being a politician and an advocate, not an unbiased scientist. He never had any business being the head of the IPCC, unless the IPCC actually wants to look like a biased political sockpuppet instead of an unbiased and rational body whose scientific projections are anything more than biased issue advocacy and political activism. If the IPCC and warmist climate scientists want to ever regain the ground they've lost in convincing the public, the first step is ousting Pachauri and the politicians and activists who are now the entire public face of climate science.

As for what else is wrong with not just the current state of the IPCC but of climate science in general, I recently read an article about how easy it is to come up with fundamentally incorrect scientific results through biases, even subconscious ones, and how peer reviewed journals may amplify the problem:

Add to that the warmists' intent to control the peer review process and freeze out journals which publish dissenting articles, as exposed in the CRU emails, and we have a recipe for permanent public distrust of the AGW theory unless the IPCC and other climate science bodies make a public effort to clean house. To date, if the Ars coverage is accurate, they haven't even admitted there are trust issues, Is climate science, therefore, stuck in a downward PR spiral with blinders on? Methinks it's a clear yes.

Good luck with the warmist circle-jerk, climate scientists. Get back to us when you're interested in exercising the scientific method in an unbiased and unprejudiced, apolitical manner again. Then we in the public at large will be willing to listen to you with open ears and minds, like we did before you went all-political-bias-all-the-time on us. Until then, we've eaten too much astroturf and whitewash like this Ars spinpiece to believe your warmist science is any less biased than your avowed politicking.

Once upon a time on Ars people calmly and rationally discussed the article. It was a happy (if brief) honeymoon.

It's a shame that fear gets in the way of people seeing that the best summary evidence we have suggests that humans are causing global climate change.

Was that summary perfect? No - we're human, show me a document that is perfect.Where flaws identified in it? Yes. Where these acted upon? Yes. Was a process put in place to improve the production of the next summary? Yes.

What more can we honestly ask for than the scientific method being applied?

For the sake of accuracy, you should correct the first sentence in the prominent second paragraph of your article. While IAC chair Harold Shapiro (as Princeton alumnus, I don't recall him being called Hal) in the press conference did say the IPCC Summary for Policymakers had some statements that were not fully supported by the literature, the IPCC misstatement on the Himalayas never made it to the Summary for Policymakers, or even to the summary of the chapter in which the statement was made. The misstatement was in a box augmenting the chapter text near the end of the chapter covering impacts in Asia, so was never part of the text that the national representatives considered in the IPCC plenary (though, of course, was in the near thousand pages of backup material in the technical chapters that the plenary accepted).

What they need to do is get the business interests out of the IPCC. I mean Pachuri himself has a major interest via the "Energy Research Institute" which is slated to get 10 miliion pounds from taxpayers via grants. It sounds far too much like a money grab, and until they get rid of all of the conflicts of interest such as that their research is worthless, just like Al Gore's little "Inconvenient Truth" when it came out he was the primary share holder in the carbon trading company that everyone would pretty much have to use if carbon trading was made into law. I mean come on, doesn't anyone else find it odd that Pachuris only doctorate is in economics and his job prior to going to work at the IPCC was simply a former railway engineer? And he just so happens to be the primary stake holder in a company slated to get millions in taxpayer money thanks to "climate change"?

Not saying it's not happening, but until they get rid of the business interests and conflict of interest out of the mix there is some major room for doubt that they are exagerating to enrich themselves.

I agree with Bryan886 but I would extend that a little. Right now they are asking scientists (I say this as a scientist) to do things we are not trained to do, like manage a press conference.

Press conferences are not the issue here. The issue here is scientists using patently false information to support massive governmental actions that would impose massive taxation and austerity, at best. What those who are interested in honest debate are asking is that ALL data and methods be made available and not mysteriously "lost"; that censorship and blackballing not take place in scientific publications; and that researchers, when faced with data that does not support their hypothesis, revise their hypothesis rather than discard or falsify their data, even if that means the funding for their grants may dry up.

But you may be right. Those may be things "scientists" are not trained to do anymore. Kinda like journalists.

I agree with Bryan886 but I would extend that a little. Right now they are asking scientists (I say this as a scientist) to do things we are not trained to do, like manage a press conference.

Press conferences are not the issue here. The issue here is scientists using patently false information to support massive governmental actions that would impose massive taxation and austerity, at best. What those who are interested in honest debate are asking is that ALL data and methods be made available and not mysteriously "lost"; that censorship and blackballing not take place in scientific publications; and that researchers, when faced with data that does not support their hypothesis, revise their hypothesis rather than discard or falsify their data, even if that means the funding for their grants may dry up.

But you may be right. Those may be things "scientists" are not trained to do anymore. Kinda like journalists.

I know you are a troll but where is your evidence that any of this is happening? Spurious and unfounded accusations are a waste of everyone's time. If you want to spend your time indulging in conspiracy mythology which can never be refuted by facts because it exists only to justify an unjustifiable assumption feel free to do so but don't ask the whole world to join you.

I know you are a troll but where is your evidence that any of this is happening? Spurious and unfounded accusations are a waste of everyone's time. If you want to spend your time indulging in conspiracy mythology feel free to do so but don't ask the whole world to join you.

The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that the more intricate they get, the more satisfying they become to the adherent, and the more unfalsifiable they become, further entrenching them in the minds of the adherents.

What they need to do is get the business interests out of the IPCC. I mean Pachuri himself has a major interest via the "Energy Research Institute" which is slated to get 10 miliion pounds from taxpayers via grants. It sounds far too much like a money grab, and until they get rid of all of the conflicts of interest such as that their research is worthless, just like Al Gore's little "Inconvenient Truth" when it came out he was the primary share holder in the carbon trading company that everyone would pretty much have to use if carbon trading was made into law. I mean come on, doesn't anyone else find it odd that Pachuris only doctorate is in economics and his job prior to going to work at the IPCC was simply a former railway engineer? And he just so happens to be the primary stake holder in a company slated to get millions in taxpayer money thanks to "climate change"?

Not saying it's not happening, but until they get rid of the business interests and conflict of interest out of the mix there is some major room for doubt that they are exagerating to enrich themselves.

And herein lies the addage "Cui Bono".

On a side note, i generally find ars a very good site for technical things, until it comes to AGW, the bias is quite large, which in itself isn't a bad thing, but it's for the fact that contentious technical aspects to do with AGW generally get handled as a "given" in support of AGW, rather than discussed in a more appropriate manner, and this is where the problem with the bias is.

I know you are a troll but where is your evidence that any of this is happening? Spurious and unfounded accusations are a waste of everyone's time. If you want to spend your time indulging in conspiracy mythology which can never be refuted by facts because it exists only to justify an unjustifiable assumption feel free to do so but don't ask the whole world to join you.

Wow, an ad hom attack right off the bat. I'm not surprised, but I must admit I thought maybe a little foreplay would be in order. Of course, when you can make any claim and hurl any insults without fear of moderation, it makes you pretty brave, doesn't it?

I would point you to the words of the scientists themselves, as exposed in thier own emails, but apparently offering those FACTS will get you a warning from the moderators. So, I instead offer specific statements from AGW "scientists" from several sources that specificall support each point I made.

HIDING OR DESTRUCTION OF DATAIf you wish to pretend that when a "scientist" says

Quote:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

and

Quote:

If they ever hearthereis a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the filerather than sendto anyone.

we shouldn't assume he meant he would destroy that data, be my guest. But it does make the FACT that later, magically the data goes missing when a FOIA request is made most curious, wouldn't you say.

CENSORSHIP AND SUPPRESSION OF DISSENTIf you wish to pretend that when a "scientist" says

Quote:

One approachis to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that theirjournal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformationunder the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, sincewhether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it ishow the journal is seen by the community that counts.I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists tosign such a letter -- 50+ people.Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably notwork -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventuallyfill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer,etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, sothe above approach might remove that hurdle too.

that he is not talking about attempting to force a publication (via pressure) to fire entire editorial boards in order to suppress publication of works critical of AGW, then be my guest.

FALSIFICATION OF DATA INSTEAD OF REVISION OF HYPOSTHESISIf you wish to believe that when a "scientist" states

Quote:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

that we are talking about a valid scientific method, be my guest.

Despite what the acolytes from the Church of the Blessed Hockey Stick seem to believe, I don't support conspiracy theories, where lack of evidence is shown as PROOF of the conspiracy. I do, however, believe in greed, hubris, and the actual words of the people involved (especially if they didn't think those words would ever become public).

Last sentence: "It may be enough that global attention to the errors in the last IPCC report will force open a seat at the table for more fair-minded scientists to provide balance in the next assessment report." -- LOL!!

The issue here is scientists using patently false information to support massive governmental actions that would impose massive taxation and austerity, at best.

An, and here's the real crux of the issue for the AGW deniers. God forbid you be required to downsize your 8000sqft McMansion, or drive your three-person family around in something smaller than a full-size SUV. Americans have refined conspicuous consumption to a high art, and they (you, if you're American) have exported it proudly. Well here's a newsflash: the Earth's resources are not fucking infinite, and there's a cost to this mindless, boorish consumption. Sure, the initial part of that cost may be a few hundred million poor brown people in some third world country dying because they've lost their water supply, but one would hardly expect Americans to suddenly start caring about faceless brown people on the other side of the planet. Threaten your McMansion and SUV, though? Now there's trouble.

The really unfortunate thing is that this threat is entirely in your mind. Moving to a greener, more sustainable living and energy model would provide a net gain in jobs, not a loss, and shouldn't cost an onerous amount of money. It's a good idea even ignoring the whole AGW debate.